Some people use adhominems and nonsequiturs to challenge what is true, because they can't offer anything else.
If you think General Shinseki was wrong and Rummie right about the number of troops needed after the war, why are we still in Iraq "to stay the course" with no plans? Those that have disagreed with this administration are now all gone. That should be a clue.
How this administration tries to bring democracy to Iraq.
January 2, 2006
Muslim Scholars Were Paid to Aid U.S. Propaganda
By DAVID S. CLOUD and JEFF GERTH
WASHINGTON, Jan. 1 - A Pentagon contractor that paid Iraqi newspapers to print positive articles written by American soldiers has also been compensating Sunni religious scholars in Iraq in return for assistance with its propaganda work, according to current and former employees.
The Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations company, was told early in 2005 by the Pentagon to identify religious leaders who could help produce messages that would persuade Sunnis in violence-ridden Anbar Province to participate in national elections and reject the insurgency, according to a former employee.
Since then, the company has retained three or four Sunni religious scholars to offer advice and write reports for military commanders on the content of propaganda campaigns, the former employee said. But documents and Lincoln executives say the company's ties to religious leaders and dozens of other prominent Iraqis is aimed also at enabling it to exercise influence in Iraqi communities on behalf of clients, including the military.
"We do reach out to clerics," Paige Craig, a Lincoln executive vice president, said in an interview. "We meet with local government officials and with local businessmen. We need to have relationships that are broad enough and deep enough that we can touch all the various aspects of society." He declined to discuss specific projects the company has with the military or commercial clients.
"We have on staff people who are experts in religious and cultural matters," Mr. Craig said. "We meet with a wide variety of people to get their input. Most of the people we meet with overseas don't want or need compensation, they want a dialogue."
Internal company financial records show that Lincoln spent about $144,000 on the program from May to September. It is unclear how much of this money, if any, went to the religious scholars, whose identities could not be learned. The amount is a tiny portion of the contracts, worth tens of millions, that Lincoln has received from the military for "information operations," but the effort is especially sensitive.
Sunni religious scholars are considered highly influential within the country's minority Sunni population. Sunnis form the core of the insurgency.
Each of the religious scholars underwent vetting before being brought into the program to ensure that they were not involved in the insurgency, said a former employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Lincoln's Pentagon contract prohibits workers from discussing their activities. The identities of the Sunni scholars have been kept secret to prevent insurgent reprisals, and they were never taken to Camp Victory, the American base outside Baghdad where Lincoln employees work with military personnel.
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for the American military in Baghdad, declined to comment.
After the disclosure in November that the military used Lincoln to plant articles written by American troops in Iraqi newspapers, the Pentagon ordered an investigation, led by Navy Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk.
Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, said that a preliminary assessment made shortly after the military's information campaign was disclosed concluded that the Army was "operating within our authorities and the appropriate legal procedures."
Admiral Van Buskirk has finished his investigation, several Pentagon officials said, but it has not been made public.
Lincoln recently sought approval from the military to make Sunni religious leaders one of several "target audiences" of the propaganda effort in Iraq. A Lincoln plan titled "Divide and Prosper" presented in October to the Special Operations Command in Tampa, which oversees information operations, suggested that reaching religious leaders was vital for reducing Sunni support for the insurgency.
"Clerics exercise a great deal of influence over the people in their communities and oftentimes it is the religious leaders who incite people to violence and to support the insurgent cause," the company said in the proposal, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times.
In some cases, "insurgent groups may provide Sunni leaders with financial compensation in return for that cleric's loyalty and support," the proposal said, adding that religious leaders are motivated by "a need to retain patronage" and a "desire to maintain religious and moral authority."
Unlike in many other Middle Eastern countries, sermons by Iraqi imams are not subject to government control, enabling them to speak "without fear of repercussions," the document said.
The Special Operations Command said in a statement that it did not adopt the Lincoln plan, choosing another contractor's proposal instead. When the Lincoln Group was incorporated last year, using the name Iraqex, its stated purpose was to provide support services for business development, trade and investment in Iraq.
But the company soon shifted to information warfare and psychological operations, two former employees said. The company was awarded three new Pentagon contracts, worth tens of millions of dollars, they said.
Payments to the scholars were originally part of Lincoln's contract to aid the military with information warfare in Anbar Province. Known as the "Western Missions" contract, it also called for producing radio and television advertisements, Web sites, posters, and for placing advertisements and opinion articles in Iraqi publications. In October, Lincoln was awarded a new contract by the Pentagon for work in Iraq, including continued contact with Muslim scholars.
Lincoln has also turned to American scholars and political consultants for advice on the content of the propaganda campaign in Iraq, records indicate. Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research organization, said he had reviewed materials produced by the company during two trips to Iraq within the past two years.
"I visited Camp Victory and looked over some of their proposals or products and commented on their ideas," Mr. Rubin said in an e-mailed response to questions about his links to Lincoln. "I am not nor have I been an employee of the Lincoln Group. I do not receive a salary from them."
He added: "Normally, when I travel, I receive reimbursement of expenses including a per diem and/or honorarium." But Mr. Rubin would not comment further on how much in such payments he may have received from Lincoln.
Mr. Rubin was quoted last month in The New York Times about Lincoln's work for the Pentagon placing articles in Iraqi publications: "I'm not surprised this goes on," he said, without disclosing his work for Lincoln. "Especially in an atmosphere where terrorists and insurgents - replete with oil boom cash - do the same. We need an even playing field, but cannot fight with both hands tied behind our backs."
Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad, Iraq, for this article.
That's just sick ci, it seemed to have done little good, but sick nevertheless.
cicerone imposter wrote:We are not going to win this war the way it's being fought: ...
How say you, should we fight this war?
cicerone imposter wrote:Some people use adhominems and nonsequiturs to challenge what is true, because they can't offer anything else. ...
You are clearly one of such people.
revel wrote:That's just sick ci, it seemed to have done little good, but sick nevertheless.
Why do you think it is "just sick" for the administration to pay people to write positive articles in an effort to help win the war?
After all, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times pay people to write negative articles in an effort to help lose the war.
I wonder who pays these members of the opinion-news media to in turn pay people to write negative articles in an effort to help lose the war. George Soros et al?
I think it is "just sick" to praise efforts to help lose the war, while criticizing efforts to help win the war.
I also think that people helping to lose the war are also de facto allies of our enemies.
Quote:I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. One sees things from a much different perspective at an altitude of 45,000 feet.
You get the same results when you wear blinders ............ it is called 'oblivion'
The US is meddling in their "free democracy" by paying clerics who have a lot of influence to print US propaganda. How can their endorsements of such articles be relied upon as being anything other than endorsement bought and paid for? It is sick that we resort to such unethical tactics.
Gelisgesti wrote:Quote:I bet certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. One sees things from a much different perspective at an altitude of 45,000 feet.
You get the same results when you wear blinders ............ it is called 'oblivion'
If you ain't been there and done that, then you lack the ability to judge that.
Try an altitude of 45,000 feet for yourself before you judge the value of its perspective.
The minimum price to charter a Learjet to get there will cost you about $7,000. It's worth it. Try it, you'll like it!
revel wrote:The US is meddling in their "free democracy" by paying clerics who have a lot of influence to print US propaganda. How can their endorsements of such articles be relied upon as being anything other than endorsement bought and paid for? It is sick that we resort to such unethical tactics.
We're "meddling"?
That's nuts!
Then according to you this is "meddling"?
on 12/14/2005, President Bush wrote: A stable Iraq was in the interests of both the Iraqi and American people, he said. And he accused critics in Washington, many of whom had originally supported the decision to invade, of playing pure politics.
Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.
revel, I'm afraid icant is right on this one. This administration has paid for propaganda in our own country. What's good for the US is good for Iraq. <smerk>
cicerone imposter wrote:revel, I'm afraid icant is right on this one. This administration has paid for propaganda in our own country. What's good for the US is good for Iraq. <smerk>
Yes! It's called financing an election campaign when the administration did it. When George-Soros-et-al plus unions plus Howard Dean pay "for propaganda in our own country" it is both financing election campaigns and financing the opinion-news media between election campaigns.
Is any of that "meddling" in American Democracy?
icant', I'm talking about this administration using federal money (our tax money) to finance republican propagnda.
www.freepress.net/action/fakenews
These petitions are now piling up on Martin's doorstep. They demand "that the Bush administration stop using our tax dollars to create fake news reports" and that the FCC punish broadcasters who beam this propaganda to unsuspecting Americans.
While it's known that these covert "video news releases" were broadcast over hundreds of local newscasts, we've yet to put together a comprehensive roster of what programs aired on which stations, when and where. Tracking content on local newscasts is proving far more difficult than it would seem.
The local station mangers know whether they've beamed propaganda into American homes, but few are speaking out. And there's few to no local news monitoring services looking out for the public's best interests and flagging official VNR's when they air.
cicerone imposter wrote:icant', I'm talking about this administration using federal money (our tax money) to finance republican propagnda.
Cice, please define what you mean by "republican propaganda," give an example of such "republican propaganda", and say when the administration issued your example. Of course, presidents and their cabinet members are known to have regularly provided propaganda to the news media that was subsequently published by the news media.
I read this:
Quote:To learn more, read the in-depth report from Free Press on the systematic effort by the Bush administration to manipulate journalists and the American public.
at,
www.freepress.net/action/fakenews
but I wasn't able to find there the specific answers to the questions I posed here.
By the way, the George-Soros-et-al-opinion-news media regularly issues democrat propaganda (e.g., freepress), but to the best of my knowledge tax money is not used to help finance it.
We'll just have to wait and see.
While it's known that these covert "video news releases" were broadcast over hundreds of local newscasts, we've yet to put together a comprehensive roster of what programs aired on which stations, when and where. Tracking content on local newscasts is proving far more difficult than it would seem.
The local station mangers know whether they've beamed propaganda into American homes, but few are speaking out.
When we look at the Bush SOP on anything from unauthorized wiretaps (Bush: We get court orders for wiretaps) to torture of prisoners (We do not torture our prisoners to I want congress to approve torture), we just need to wait until some brave media mogul tells the truth about this issue.
cicerone imposter wrote:We'll just have to wait and see.
Quote:While it’s known that these covert "video news releases" were broadcast over hundreds of local newscasts, we've yet to put together a comprehensive roster of what programs aired on which stations, when and where. Tracking content on local newscasts is proving far more difficult than it would seem.
...
Without at least one quoted example and its date, all this reads like more george-soros-et-al-opinion-news propaganda of falsities.
cicerone imposter wrote:When we look at the Bush SOP on anything from unauthorized wiretaps (Bush: We get court orders for wiretaps) to torture of prisoners (We do not torture our prisoners to I want congress to approve torture), we just need to wait until some brave media mogul tells the truth about this issue.
The
unlawful wiretap allegation, and the
massive torture of enemy prisoners allegation, have been shown to be george-soros-et-al-opinion-news propaganda of falsities.
On September 14, 2001 Congress passed the following joint resolution that among other things reinforced the president's Constitutional power to order adequate intelligence surveillance of suspected enemy persons
(emphasis added by me):
Quote:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html
...
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
...
107th CONGRESS 1st Session S. J. RES. 23 JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
...
icant', You can't go pasting only the section you think supports your position. You left out the following.
INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION
SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.
(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.
